Hansen’s “US Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History” is particularly nice. Contact with ridiculously generous bribes if you’re prefer not to wait:
Some stuff I plan on putting on ebay… Star Trek ships, phasers, German/Japanese WWI aircraft & nuclear weapons books. If you want something but don't want to wait… I take bribes. pic.twitter.com/JKuW6vvd3u
— Unwanted Blog (@UnwantedBlog) March 26, 2024
I’ve just uploaded a 1986 article on the “Midgetman” road-mobile Small ICBM developed but not deployed by the US at the end of the Cold War to Dropbox for above-$10 APR Patrons/Subscribers.
This is of course on top of the monthly rewards packages and the “Extras” posted rather irregularly. If you’d be interested, consider subscribing:
With all the little publications I’ve written and illustrated, and all the years of blogging ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT political opinions and the like, it seems that at least *one* of my efforts will go down through the ages: my design for the Orion Battleship. We know to a fair certainty that such a craft was designed in the early 1960s, and that a mockup the size of a car was built; we know some of the components and features of that design. But other than that… we don’t know much. The overall size and configuration are unknown. So, fifteen years ago when I was working on an article for Aerospace Projects Review about large Orion vehicles, I went ahead and made a speculative reconstruction design. I did my best with what was available… and in the years since, nothing seems to have come out to refute the design. I do not contend that the design is an accurate reconstruction; I was never able to get in touch with anyone who knew the Battleship design first-hand to confirm my reconstruction. I could well be *badly* wrong, especially since the descriptions of the original design tend to be second-hand. One day we might find out for sure.
But in the years since I showed my design to the world, I’ve seen it recreated here and there. It seems to be the accepted Actual Design.
Huh.
Behold:
That second video uses a model based on my design, more renders of which are HERE.
A purchasable 3D printed, lower fidelity copy of my design on Etsy:
My renders – unimpressive even by 2009 standards – even made it into meme format:
If you want to see the Orion Battleship as I designed it in its original format, check out Aerospace Projects Review issue V2N2.
There are several ways to accomplish the goal of extracting maximum performance from a solid rocket motor via the nozzle. The most common way – a convergent-divergent nozzle – is the standard for a reason: it’s the simplest, lightest most reliable way to do it. But there are alternatives that provide specific advantages. One of them is the “forced deflection nozzle.” Instead of a single circular throat, the nozzle has several; instead of directing the exhaust gas due aft, it forces it “sideways” to smack into the broader, shallower nozzle.
The advantages here:
1: The nozzle is sort of a hemispherical bowl, rather than a long, slim cone or paraboloid.
2: It provides some altitude compensation, similar to an aerospike.
There are also disadvantages, not least of which is that the throat is now under substantially greater thermal and dynamic forces. Few materials known to Man will be able to long withstand the high heat load and erosive forces. But in 1986, Aerojet proposed to develop such a nozzle for a singular purpose: to integrate into future ICBMs. The reasoning was… the bowl-like nozzle fits the bowl-like forward dome of the lower stage. Instead of a long interstage structure being required, the stages fit together neatly. in principle this would allow ballistic missiles to be more compact, shorter by useful distances. This is not very important for space launchers, but for missiles that need to fit into silos, submarines, bomb bays or Shuttle cargo bays, extra space means extra capacity.
Diagram showing a conventional 3-stage solid rocket ICBM against three concepts making use of the forced deflection nozzle. You could have a much shorter vehicle with equivalent weight and payload, or same-length boosters with 28.4% greater range for the same payload, or 33% greater payload for the same range.
Some items on Amazon that one might wish to procure.
This one I can confirm works. Mine goes bonkers from time to time in antique shops.
And this. Cannot confirm it works as directed. Hope to not have to find out.
Why? Well, why not.
Lots of people think we’re on the cusp of ditching fossil fuels in favor of an all-electric “renewable” and “green” world. There are of course a vast number of problems with this… when they say “all electric” they almost never mean “all nuclear,” but instead want to pave over the fields with a million acres of solar panels and fill the seas with whale-confounding wind turbines. But there are issues beyond just what method will produce the volts and amps. For instance… all the batteries will need to be filled with metals dug out of the Earth; electric motors and a billion miles of power lines will need to be processed from all the copper we can scrape up. And the problem seems to be that at current resource extraction (i.e. mining) rates, we’re nowhere near able to deliver those materials.
So it seems we have a few options:
1) Turn Earth into a giant open pit. To hell with the environment… we need to save the environment!
2) Go all-electric… and just tell people to suck it up, they’ll learn to live with less. 15-minute cities will seem like the wildest dream of raving libertarians. Personal vehicles? Gone. Traveling any sort of distance at all? Prohibitively expensive to simply prohibited. Air conditioning? A myth from the Old Ones.
3) Asteroid mining. Everything we might need is available a million times over floating out in space; the effort to retrieve it will open spaceflight to mankind in a way never before dreamed, spreading civilization and terrestrial biology to the furthest regions of the solar system.
Which will it be?
There is physically not enough material at current extraction rates to produce one generation of technology (which needs to be replaced every 20 years or so) to phase out fossil fuels. We either better start ramping up our mining efforts or drop this fantasy. pic.twitter.com/XMNngP9cc3
— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) September 9, 2023
J. Robert Oppenheimer is justly famed for his role in developing the A-bomb. He is considered to be something of a martyr for what happened later… during the “Red Scare” he was stripped of his security clearance. But was it actually wrong to do so? Was his interest in the Communist Party some minor childish dalliance from his earlier years… or was it more serious? The recent movie, and most modern depictions, portray him in a positive light.
But he *was* a Communist. What’s worse, there’s good evidence – lots of it from the actual Soviets – that he actively worked for them. He apparently slipped them heaps of data to help their bomb program, and then once the Soviets had the bomb, he worked to sabotage the American bomb program.
It’s probably well past time that Oppenheimer be re-examined. And if it’s finally concluded that he was a traitor, which there’s good evidence that he was, his name needs to be appropriately blackened as any Communists should be. We tear down statues of people who supported slavery 250 years ago; we tear down statues of people who supported the CSA for *whatever* reason 160 years ago; we would tear down statues of anyone who supported the Nazis 80 years ago. We should tear down statues and monuments and hagiographies of anyone who supported Communists a hundred years ago, fifty years ago or today.
Communism is every bit as bad as Fascism, and arguably worse; Communists *today* are universally terrible people because they have a century of blood-soaked failure that they *choose* to ignore. Communists, their supporters and their wishy-washy Socialist wannabes need to be called out for the monsters and morons that they are. And that includes historical figures.
So the Russians are claiming that the Ukrainians are gonna blow up the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and then blame it on Russia. That’d certainly be a neat trick for the Ukrainians, since the Russians occupy and control the place. Ukraine claims the Russians are going to blow it up and blame it on Ukraine, but it seems that the wind would tend to blow the fallout into Russia.
There have been two similar “false flag” attacks in this war: the Nord Stream pipeline and the Kakhovka dam. Small problem… sober analysis seems to indicate that both of those were destroyed by incompetence and/or neglect rather than direct action. But the nuclear power plant is shut down; it should be nicely inert. So if it explodes… somebody exploded it. Who is more likely to do that, Ukraine or Russia? Ukraine could probably only pull that off with some sort of major assault… a lot of troops, planes and armor, aided by HIMARS and the like raining down. While possible, that could hardly be disguised as a Russian attack. And of course, Ukraine wants the reactor back. It’s theirs, after all. Never mind the environmental devastation of its destruction, it’s worth a bucket of cash. Repairing it would be cost prohibitive, and resuming power generation would be an economic boon.
On the other hand, the Russians could well have mined the place. At the push of a button their could turn it into garbage.
Why would they do something so crazy? I dunno. Ask Prigozhin. Why do Russian military/political leaders do *anything,* and is there anything resembling reason, logic or sense to it?
If it happens… things will likely get sporty. An attack on Ukraine is not an attack on NATO. But intentionally causing a reactor meltdown or setting fire to spent fuel rods? That *might* send clouds of fallout over Germany, Poland and the like. They could consider that a radiological attack, and might invoke Article 5. And then it’s NATO vs Russia.
These units used Strontium-90 (half life: 29 years) for the earlier ones, then Caesium-137 (half life 30 years) and Cerium-144 (half life 285 *days*). Half a century or more later the earlier units should still be kinda warm; those Cerium units will be dead as doornails (though perhaps the decay products might be spooky, not an expert). Probably some exciting weapons potential for those Stronium/Caesium units for go-getters with the gumption to go get ’em.
As good an idea as nuclear power is… this sort of thing goes to show what a nightmare a planned collectivist economy can be for the environment. You support socialism not only at your own peril, but everyone else’s.
A whackaloon second-rate dictator with access to nukes? What could possibly go wrong?